Gears 5 Xbox Series S Gameplay Demo Showcases 120 FPS Multiplayer

Microsoft has shared a new gameplay demo of Gears 5 running on the Xbox Series S with 120 FPS multiplayer mode. It can be easily toggled in options.

[Vits]

This is impressive, but not really something that useful for most people. However the improvements being shipped to the Series X version are really something. That 1.5x the number of particles when compared with PC on Ultra settings in particular is rather surprising for something running on 4K/60fps.

Just to illustrate on the current PC ultra settings a GTX 2080 TI + i9-9900K @ 5.0 GHz manage a average of 55 fps on 4K.

(source: https://www.techpowerup.com...

[SullysCigar]

Regarding the series x enhancements, in fairness, the PC launch was a while ago now, so this probably just represents the latest patch that will arrive on PC too.

Not mentioning the series s resolution figure seems odd - they just say "lower resolution". Options are good, so I guess we should be grateful, but transparency would also be appreciated.

[Vits]

"Regarding the series x enhancements, in fairness, the PC launch was a while ago now, so this probably just represents the latest patch that will arrive on PC too."

My point was how well the Series X was running the game. Not really if the enhancements will be exclusive to it or will be releasing on PC.

"Not mentioning the series s resolution figure seems odd - they just say "lower resolution". Options are good, so I guess we should be grateful, but transparency would also be appreciated."

The Series S target 1440p. So I assume that 1440p during "normal mode" and 1080p when using this 120fps mode. But I agree that more clarity on that would be great.

[SullysCigar]

^ Yeah, that's what I was assuming,1080p @ 120fps and 1440p @ 60fps.

[On a side note: Only Series X is tagged on this article, yet the title is really about Series S (although PC and Series X are mentioned in article) - does Series S even have it's own tag yet? And if not, should the tag be renamed 'Xbox Series'? Just thinking out loud.]

[Tech5]

this is most likely good for the gamers that find frame rate more important than resolution.
for which i can recall many gamers saying frames is more important. so i guess that's one good thing among other things going for this console.

[Army_of_Darkness]

It's nice that ms's next gen console can play a current gen game at higher resolution and frame rates and all... But isn't that something we'd expect anyway?
Not exactly something to brag about to be honest because it sure as hell doesn't convince me to buy one. Why? Because A. I buy a next gen console for next gen games. And B. Even if I wanted a series S too play current gen games, there just isn't enough good first party games on Xbox one to justify a purchase, since with multiplats I can just use the ps5.

[anubusgold]

@SullysCigar that is not what they said at all it said that games can run up to 1440P 120fps. And if you can do that on a regular gtx 1080 you should be able to do it on the series x since its newer hardware.

[SullysCigar]

@anubusgold, read the article, it's a direct quote. That's why I used quotation marks.

[TheProblem]

How old is this game now?

[subzero1992]

12 months.

[Sophisticated_Chap]

Competing consoles don't have experiences like this that last for years.

[alexa324]

I get paid over $90 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing,

HERE► https://bit.ly/2zPpkEQ

[Rhythmattic]

Sophisticated_Chap
You need a console? Didn't know that

[leejohnson222]

Shown as a selling point for NEXT generation, with new tech, new software and new experiences. Or at least it always was since i started gaming. Never seen next gen advertised like this

[RememberThe357]

Leave it to the "sophisticated chap" to imply that PlayStation doesn't have any multiplayer games lol

[Hakuoro]

The Series S runs the Xbone S version. Xbox One S renders at dynamic resolution including values such as 792p and 864p up to full 1080p.

And the SX is not running the game at even close to PC ultra settings.

[FanboySpotter]

Gears 5 settings on SX go beyond. Watch DF

[Ju]

Speaking of XS. If this is the baseline for next gen game, I want to see how the developers will make this work on a 4TF GPU. That's the thing. We could have had this as a baseline and everyone would have been happy. I wonder if they even bother optimizing this for the XS or just simply recompile the XBox version with 1080/1440 and strap on a 1440 option/

[thesoftware730]

Hahahaha,

Hard to believe for you huh?

But it really is..so going forward I'm going to assume you are impressed by the SX, because it's clearly doing something you perceive as impossible. For a console.

[Ju]

Well, prepare for some disappointment, then.

[ProjectVulcan]

Digital Foundry did the comparison in depth here https://www.youtube.com/wat... and with their detailed like for like on settings and resolution and everything else, Xbox Series X was comparable to an RTX2080.

Not an RTX2080 Super, not an RTX2080Ti.

That's pretty good but it's a year old game, on two year old PC hardware about to be replaced. One week's time after I write this an RTX2080 is officially midrange performance, at best. You'll likely see that card beaten out by a $349 RTX3060 or 3060Ti midrange product before Series X launches in November.

Calm down with the hype, basically.

[Vits]

It was not "their detailed like for like on settings" though. They were just talking over what The Coalition had showed in the stream. Especifically the Series X running the benchmark on Ultra (without any of the improvements) against a PC with a RTX 2080, Threadripper 2950X and 64GB of RAM.

And their conclusion was that the Xbox Series X GPU was on par with a RTX 2080. Followed by: "And the best part is just two weeks old code". And that was all in march while the 120 fps multiplayer was not even implemented.

But in any case I'm not hyped about anything. What I'm is impressed by what this $500 box can do in this year old game. As a PC gamer how would I not? This is almost as good performance per money than what Nvidia new RTX 3000 is providing if not more.

[ProjectVulcan]

So not RTX2080Ti performance, then.

They emphasised that the code was two weeks work and Series X had other settings, but also that PC ran fixed resolution whereas the console versions including Series X almost certainly have dynamic resolution modes enabled to shore up performance and stabilise 60FPS, something PC can also do.

To that end their conclusion which was done in conjunction with Coalition demonstrating the versions showed that Series X had basic raster performance equal to an RTX2080.

This did not touch on any ray tracing performance because of course Gears has nothing like that, although a 2080 likely has superior RT performance to Series X as will likely a midrange 3060.

Series X GPU is not equal to an RTX2080Ti. It's more like an RTX2080 with somewhat less raw ray tracing performance which is absolutely fine but let's be clear, that is a two year old GPU.

This very week we stand upon a threshold and major readjustment of PC GPU performance expectations with the launch of the RTX3000 series.

To me Series X hardware looks useful, although it is going to have to do more than run a previous generation, year old game with fading multiplayer to convince a lot of people to actually purchase $500 boxes. Proper dedicated next gen titles are needed.

[Vits]

"So not RTX2080Ti performance, then."

Their conclusion about ONE game with a two weeks old code. Indeed was that the GPU of a Xbox Series X is somewhere around a 2080. But you can yourself look for benchmarks of how well Gears 5 run on a RTX 2080 TI and you form a broader opinion that is not based on a single source.

"They emphasised that the code was two weeks work and Series X had other settings, but also that PC ran fixed resolution whereas the console versions including Series X almost certainly have dynamic resolution modes enabled to shore up performance and stabilise 60FPS, something PC can also do."

The PC also have a much better CPU and much more ram. I feel that if you are going to point out the possibility of the Xbox version using dynamic resolution. You should at least address that. Because, contrary to your speculation that is a fact.

"This did not touch on any ray tracing performance because of course Gears has nothing like that, although a 2080 likely has superior RT performance to Series X as will likely a midrange 3060. Series X GPU is not equal to an RTX2080Ti. It's more like an RTX2080 with somewhat less raw ray tracing performance which is absolutely fine but let's be clear, that is a two year old GPU."

We don't even know how AMD architeture handles the load of RT. So this is again just speculation on your part. But even if that ended up being the case that would only be expect, those GPUS alone cost either more than the whole price of the console or a big part of it.

And yes it's equivalent to two year old GPU. Paired with a CPU, SSD, Memory, Drive, etc... for $500. Pretty good value if you ask me.

"This very week we stand upon a threshold and major readjustment of PC GPU performance expectations with the launch of the RTX3000 series."

Not really. What got readjusted was the price per performance expectations for PC GPU. The performance improvements while quite good are not amazing without the accompanied ~50% price drop when compared to last gen.

"To me Series X hardware looks useful, although it is going to have to do more than run a previous generation, year old game with fading multiplayer to convince a lot of people to actually purchase $500 boxes. Proper dedicated next gen titles are needed."

This have absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed. But I will give to you that you took more posts than most to move the goal post.

[ProjectVulcan]

Why are you trying to push that Series X is as fast as an RTX2080Ti?

You're simply wrong. Digital Foundry have said, if you need any more authoritative source, that you're wrong. It's equal to an RTX2080 on raster performance. Other opinions of tech analysis that have compared the GPU specifications to what we know about the shading performance of RTX2000 series Series X is definitely not as fast as an RTX2080Ti.

RTX2080Ti also renders path traced games like Minecraft RT nearly twice as fast as Series X, such is the gap in ray tracing performance. Please just stop. Stop this hyperbole, stop lies and misleading statements about the GPU performance of Series X.

Series X will not use a fixed resolution/settings for this particular game. It isn't speculation, I guarantee it. It may be capable of holding at a near fixed resolution and settings, but sustaining it at all times is unlikely. Xbox One and One X both use the technique, and reality is it's also best enabled on PC. Dynamic resolution and settings will be an essential safety net for the hardware to sustain performance in difficult render scenarios that it can't quite power through. By disabling that feature on PC you inevitably disadvantage it to see the game rendered at native resolution at all times, including any 0.1 percent dips below 60FPS that would overwhelm any modern hardware.

Also don't play another ignorance card about the ray tracing performance of these consoles. Microsoft have already stated that it is a mere 13 Teraflops compute, only about half that of an RTX2080. It takes up a relatively small area of the GPU die. There is no magic involved here that makes AMD's first generation hardware ray tracing miraculously faster for the silicon area it occupies versus Nvidia's performance versus density. Widely accepted in the industry to be considerably superior..

If you have a $499 GPU that performs like a GPU that cost $1200 for the past 2 years and you claim there is no radical performance adjustment for the PC GPU market then you're beyond help. It's a statement borne out of buffoonery!

No law exists that prevents me from pointing out Gears of War 5 was as of last week only the 20th best played multiplayer game on Xbox. Dying previous generation games no more sell $500 boxes than wildly incorrect claims about GPU performance or cost ratios.

[waverider]

The diference of a port for pc.... And the console version. In term of raw power the diference is big. The fact it runs worst at pc is the question why having a console is always a Good choice...

[Father__Merrin]

so a pc with a £400 i9 and £1000 gpu manages same or less than a series X that costs £449?

[Vits]

Basically.
Or about the same as A PC with a £810 Threadripper and a £600 RTX 2080 if you go by the official benchmark.

[Ju]

Well, its a 12TF console vs whatever the 2080 on a PC (14?). You can't run the current Gears 5 on a 7TF GPU with a faster CPU on the PC at comparable detail in 4k@60 on a current PC, either. While the X1X does this indeed. So, instead of "impressive" I would rather title this as "expected".

[Vits]

Teraflops don't really work like that. When you are comparing completely different architectures they just lose all meaning. But in any case what I'm impressed by is how much of a value proposition that translate into the real world.

[Ju]

TF are TF. You can compare something in some ballpark and you get comparable results. Consoles with dedicated code can cut corners and don't need to carry the same weight which makes that so much more efficient, especially with latency and exact low level timing in mind. But at the end of the day its just the same thing. Of course I acknowledge that the X1X was built quite well for what it was optimized for. When you need brute force grunt (compute either CPU or GPU) that's what you get. No matter if console or PC. You can just use those on a console more efficiently.

[Obscure_Observer]

This is insane! I would be more than pleased by 60fps for most games running on Series X and PS5 regardless the resolution.

Now 120fps on a weaker 1440p console like the Series? O.o

Next is already exciting in my book.

[Hungryalpaca]

That link is a 404. The only comparison I can find is the SX being compared to the game running on a Ryzen Processor and RTX 2080 and the average is from a benchmark not actual gameplay. Not the same specs you mention.

[Vits]

https://www.techpowerup.com...

I must have hit a extra ")" when I posted. Though you might got it wrong from my original post. This link does not have a match between SX vs PC. It's only about the PC version if multiple GPUs being tested. Their conclusion is this: "Even with its stunning visuals (some maps do look less impressive) performance is very good across the board. For 1080p 60 FPS gaming at Ultra details, all you need is a RX 570 4 GB or GTX 1060 3 GB. Gears 5 definitely looks well optimized. To achieve 60 FPS at 1440p, a Radeon RX Vega or GTX 1070 Ti will do. 4K has much higher requirements though as even the mighty RTX 2080 Ti can only achieve 56 FPS at that resolution. Remember, all this is at "Ultra", the game has plenty of options that can be dialed down a little bit for only a minor loss in quality, but some extra FPS."

But I recommend that you find more benchmarks and tests to form a better opinion.

[sampsonon]

"This is impressive, but not really something that useful for most people."

Most people are living paycheck to paycheck. Kids in lower income households might see this under the Christmas tree this year. At least they will be able to play with their friends that have the series x.

What i am saying is it's not a bad thing and "most people" especially with the pandemic, will be able to put a smile on their kids face at Christmas.

[Lexreborn2]

Buddy and I are still working on beating this game. I play on a 2060 rtx essentially a 1440p machine. I push upward 4K 60 medium assets but 1080p unlocked and regardless what I play it on the little fidelity issues still don’t do anything that the game’s pretty average.

I think I’ll go ahead and play a little more tonight finishing it would be nice to tick off my list.

[Gaming4Life1981]

I really liked the campaign on gears 5 and also the characters, I hope that they do more with open world next time. The open world parts was not bad but it left me wanting more.

[ColdSin]

I hope they implement what they learned with the open-world structure in an urban environment. Less empty spaces and more closed-spaces. Maybe explore that narrative-splitting mechanic used in the first, second, and third game but in a more dynamic fashion.

[Ju]

Thank you. Its not just me then...

[S2Killinit]

Is that picture what we are to expect from them for next gen?

[blacktiger]

where is the gameplay?

[Wikkid666]

@blacktiger doesn't know how to read

[jairusmonillas]

Series S doesn't feel like it's next gen at all. What a mistake decision by Team Xbox for releasing this bottleneck last gen console.

[Bnet343]

So just buy the Series X durrrrr. There's options. To go into next gen for $300 is smart.

[RememberThe357]

You're not wrong. The Series S makes the Series X look like a steal. The performance for the price is stupid. A third of the power for not even half the price. The only reason this thing seems to exist was so MS could price lower than the PS5. What a waist.

[RonsonPL]

Don't bother. There is no 120fps stream and what they link as source specifically required because of Youtube not being able to host 120fps, is also a 60fps file, for some reason. So you can't see it running at 120fps at all.

Also, it's not a good sign that they still "Investigating 12OFPS Multiplayer support" at this stage. It's too late for that. This should be working perfectly fine already. This means they're having some issues with holding this as steady 120fps.
Let's hope it doesn't end up as "almost 120fps" or unstable 120fps. Sadly, this is exactly what I expect to happen at this point. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.

[MikePWV]

Do you have any experience making games that support 120 FPS?

[RonsonPL]

What that has to do with my comment? I downloaded the file, wasted my time on checking it on two players and checking the video format info of the file, after I clearly saw it's not 120fps, so I made a comment to spare others wasting their time. And I get downvotes and a question about my knowledge. WTF? :D

Did you mean the second part? I know enough. I know what it takes to get up to 120fps and I observe gaming industry since decades so I have my doubts when I see "we'll try", "we target..." and "we're investigating".
Remember Drive Club? Late stage of development "we're targeting 60fps". How did that turn out? Do you remember "we'll give you 60fps mode" in many current gen games which turned out to be just mostly 40-50fps framerate (useless and worthless compared to real, stable 60fps).
Did you see that MS mentions Variable Refresh Rate in their specs? Are you aware that most gamers think there's no advantage of having stable 120fps over 110fps with Free-sync/G-sync/Whatever-sync ?
Did you see what Codemasters said about their DIRT 5 game? Did you read carefully what they're saying in the interview about it? Did you see their recent trailer uploaded officially on Youtube at 60fps with 30fps gameplay?
Do you know how late it is at this point to talk about a patch for an old game, when the new consoles are just weeks from being released?
Up to 120fps is NOT 120fps. Without it being a stable framerate, you can forget about crystal clear motion. There is not a single TV or monitor which does variable refresh properly combined with backlight strobing. This means this is currently ignored by majority of gamers who don't know better, and for me just the improvement of lower controller latency in responsivness is like 10% of the appeal of 120Hz. If it's real 120fps on all maps, then great. That's a breakthrough for console gaming and gaming in general (cause it will popularize 120fps gaming). But if it's "up to" they I couldn't give a flying f.. about it. I already once hoped a similar improvement may bring big changes. PS2 and Dreamcast received mouse support in Quake III and Red Faction. And look where we are. Almost 20 years later and mouse on consoles is just as popular is it was back then. Almost nonexistent. 120fps deserves hype, deserves to be called a revolution, it matters more than ray tracing, SSDs and all that. But it needs to get serious traction, wide and solid support, not some half-assed "here and there,
and stable 120fps in like 2% of all games".
The fact that they offer it only in multiplayer mode and still are not sure at this stage, speaks volumes.

But it's still my personal prediction. Read the last two phrases in my comment above again, if you missed it. Let's hope it's just the fact that in reality, they didn't spend more than 5 minutes on it, cause no one really gave a toss about it until now. Which would be dumb, so I stick to my guess on that.

[frostypants]

Neat trick but the vast majority of TVs don't even have native 120Hz capability, so most won't be able to take advantage.

[boing1]

At 4k, yes. However, most 4k TVs sold through last couple of years should support 120Hz at 1080p no problem. My 4k TV has great hardware upscaler and playing a game in 1080 is not bad at all. When you're sitting at least 2 meters away. I will gladly accept 4k 60fps, though.

[Bismarn]

I'd rather watch Fuzion Frenzy than any more Gears demos.

[menghina]

COOOLLKKLK GIVE ME 3566453429 FPS NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW I WANT TO REPLAY ALL MY OLD GAMESSSSS IN 302032103021012 FPSSSSSSSSS PLS I WANT I dont NEED NEW GAMES ON NEXT-GEN ONLY LAST GEN GAMES AT 3201321932102FPS GAMES MADE WITH NO SOUL BUT wITH 23012-302-1=0421 FPS NOW , THANKS MS , TYYYYYYYYYY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lamusiqa]

If you checked the file name of the video, you will see the resolution as well which is confirmed to be 1080p. Why they didn't flat out say it's running at 1080p @ 120fps? My guess it's just not to appear underpowered compared to the faster consoles. Despite the Series S may be running on One S version of the game as opposed to enhanced One X version, the framerate boost is a much-welcomed feature for fans, I think.

[leejohnson222]

Why do they keep showing cross gen, is this not a next gen system?

[dreamed]

So if what MS are saying is true.. How on earth in my base xbox vcr goons handle 120fps?...i suppose my graphics will have to look like Minecraft... That is only if Spencer sticks to his word of all xboxs being able to play all games together.... Or are they gonna just cut me of live a septic limb.. Lol

[Wikkid666]

LOL... you should stay away from drugs. Your mind is already pretty messed up.

[yomfweeee]

We're supposed to be impressed that a last gen game can is running on a next-gen console at 120fps, but the resolution had to be reduced to 1080p?